🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. 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 deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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