🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”