🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

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

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – 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 first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”