🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”