🔗 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 move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee 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 wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. 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 profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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.”