🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units 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 gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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.”

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