🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 acting legally.”

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