🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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