🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot 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 war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited 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 violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”