🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of 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 installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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 doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality 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 the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”