🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss 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 drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of 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 major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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 direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”