🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend 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 standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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