🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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