🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – 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 first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial 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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern 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 violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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