🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot 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 a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee 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 series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”