🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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 manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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