🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”