🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 following orders.”

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