🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

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 extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident 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 confrontation in which both sides 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.”