🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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