🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals 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 best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

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 real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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