🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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.”