🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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