🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, 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 rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss 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 Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting 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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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