🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. 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 changed reality 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 best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. 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 “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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