🔗 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 strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”