🔗 Share this article

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 American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised 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 gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

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