🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate 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 noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”