🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push 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 repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem 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 wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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