🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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