🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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