🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He 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 succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed 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 sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’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 installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government 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 legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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