🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos 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 deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”