🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

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 B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue 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 deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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