🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

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 modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”