🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, 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 restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides 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.”