🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”