🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated 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 planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 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 intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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