🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated 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 similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”