🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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 first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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