🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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