🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden 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 violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”