🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”