🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – 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 senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”