🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, 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 was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent 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 anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party 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.”