🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. 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 established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”