🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”