🔗 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 American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – 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 fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”