🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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