🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

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. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

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

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. 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 contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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