🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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