🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed 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 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory 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 federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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