🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration 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 drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

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

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming 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 removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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