🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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