🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

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