🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing 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 long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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.”

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