🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 confrontation 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 getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”