🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down 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 Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference 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 Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”