🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. 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 federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”