🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”