🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to 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 placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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