🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq 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 a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”