🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”