🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”