🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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