🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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