🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial 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 survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”