🔗 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 highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors 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 homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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