🔗 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 American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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 WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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