🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion 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 succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership 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 US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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