🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers 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 local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”