🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 removing them from posts of command 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals 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 war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

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

Eaton’s gravest worry 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”