🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator 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 outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US 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 illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”