🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

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

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”