🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the top brass 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 credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted 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 opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”