🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, 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 the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions 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 several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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.”

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