🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem 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 profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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