🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”