🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept 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 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 furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat 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 contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”