🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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 debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 right.”

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.”