🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change 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 purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator'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 installed 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 men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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