🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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.”

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