🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership 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 doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom 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 ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, 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 violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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