🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of 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 installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”