🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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.”

Sooner or later, 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.”