🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”