🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”