🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General 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 unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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