🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”