🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at 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 Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series 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 clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”