🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”