🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions 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 people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”