🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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.”