🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”