🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally 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 deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. 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 predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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