🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established 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 murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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