🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating 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 Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated 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 US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”