🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a imaginary 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 following orders.”

At some point, 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.”