🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies 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 train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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