🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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.”

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