🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed 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 stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”