🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

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

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue 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 international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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