🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”