🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, 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.”