🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 right.”

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