🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated 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 US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective 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 murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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.”