🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern 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 breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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