🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides 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 harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”