🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”