🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the senior command 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 efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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