🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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