🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”