🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes 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 early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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