🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem 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 profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 following orders.”

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