🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating 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 at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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