🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 escalation 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”