🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”