🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 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 harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”