🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. 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 extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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