🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed 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 similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

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 is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”