🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – 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 undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. 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 disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”