The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.
“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”
He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”
Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.
In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.
Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.
In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.
This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”
The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”
The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.
One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.
Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”
Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.
Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”
Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”
A tech enthusiast and gaming aficionado with over a decade of experience in digital media and content creation.
