🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”