🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, 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 effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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