🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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