🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime 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 himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – 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. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”