🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 following orders.”

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