🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos 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 a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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 dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to 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 placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated 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 similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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