🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised 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 dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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