🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted 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 remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”