🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”