🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”