🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee 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 wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established 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 violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”