🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of 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 real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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