🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals 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 WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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