🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”