🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon 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 assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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