🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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