🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” 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 no doubts about the ethical breach 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 firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”