🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft 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 advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”