🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to 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 placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”