🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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