🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”