🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train 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 took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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