🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort 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 rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

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

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, 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 shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”