🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”