🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”