🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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