🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach 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 survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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