🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”