🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from 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 sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host 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 constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime 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.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”