🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”