🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating 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 reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty 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 firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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