🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

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 anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach 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.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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