🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks 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 stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped 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 parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. 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 without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 right.”

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