🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of 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 unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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