🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

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

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

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

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty 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 posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach 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 WWII submarine captain 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 domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops 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 state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”