🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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