🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”