🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion 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 top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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