🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”