🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting 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 symptom of the harm 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 established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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