🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective 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 U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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