🔗 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 US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee 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 succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges 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 inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership 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 accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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