🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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