🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference 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.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early 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 prohibited 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 major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised 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 gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”