🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from 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 Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts 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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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