🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled 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 at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases 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 commandeered 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”