🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. 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 contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”