🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative 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 campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”