🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem 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 extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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.”

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