🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”