🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”