🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train 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 war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility 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 contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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