🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. 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 conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped 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 similar impact.”

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 erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, 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.”