🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”