🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading 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 require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia 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 infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted 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 key initial move 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 rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed 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 reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”