🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – 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 view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader 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 men and women, but they are ousting 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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration 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 prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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