🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”