🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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