🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted 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 manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. 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 abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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.”

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