🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent 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 officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”