🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”