🔗 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 American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection 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 nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

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

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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 local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”