🔗 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 strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable 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 officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”