🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”