🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

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 swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated 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 US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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