🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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