🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”