🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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