🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating 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 vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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