🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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