🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”