🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party 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.”