🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 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.”