🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy 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 sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

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

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”