🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”