The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.
“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”
He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”
Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.
In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.
Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.
In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.
This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”
The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.
“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”
The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.
One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.
Eaton has stated clearly 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 looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”
Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.
The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”
Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”
