🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”