🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 forbidden to order that every combatant 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 grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 right.”

Eventually, 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.”