🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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 manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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.”