🔗 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 highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“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 executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”