🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned 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 assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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