🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation 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 compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in 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 situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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