🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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