🔗 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 top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – 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 analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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