🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, 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 removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”