🔗 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 push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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