🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down 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 assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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 fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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