🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost 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 the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty 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 gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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