🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from 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 deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed 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 removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”