🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – 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 senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 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 civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”