🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating 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 purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality 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 federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 right.”

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