The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.
“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”
He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”
An Entire Career in Service
Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.
Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
War Games and Reality
In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.
A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.
The Pentagon Purge
In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.
This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”
Legal and Ethical Lines
The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.
One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” 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 potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”
Domestic Deployment
Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.
The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides 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.”
