🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these men and women, but they are ousting 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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”