🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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