🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing 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 noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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.”

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