The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.
“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”
He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”
An Entire Career in Uniform
Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Reality
In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.
Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.
A Leadership Overhaul
In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.
This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”
A Historical Parallel
The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.
“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”
Rules of Engagement
The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.
One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.
Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach 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 extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 following orders.”
At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”
