🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos 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 a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step 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 swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality 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 best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless 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 homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 acting legally.”

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.”