🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars 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 stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”