🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

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

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”