🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept 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 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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage 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 manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party 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.”