🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at 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 sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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.”