🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft 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 climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact 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 inserted 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 leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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