🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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 real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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