🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. 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 federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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