🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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