🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons 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 capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally 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 nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official 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 armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable 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 killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops 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 municipal law enforcement. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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