🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary 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 smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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