🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons 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 credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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 authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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 different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty 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 similar impact.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”