🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

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 Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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.”

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