🔗 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 American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few 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 concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – 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 analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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