🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”