🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief 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 vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed 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 comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. 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 “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”