🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 both sides think they are right.”

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