🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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.”

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