🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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 debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective 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 murder. 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 deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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