🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 acting legally.”

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