🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

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

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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 local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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