🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

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 professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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