🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”