🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas 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 personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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