🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”