🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 each party think they are right.”

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