🔗 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 senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 right.”

Eventually, 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.”