🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal 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 right.”

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