🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed 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 perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

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

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining 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 unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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