🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”