🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 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 West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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