🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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