🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

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

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