🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation 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 civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”