🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming 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 dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 right.”

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