🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary 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 is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission 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 train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 U-boat commander attacking 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 within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”