🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”