🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts 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 U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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