🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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