🔗 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 American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection 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 is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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 federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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