🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, 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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”