🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge 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.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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