🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”