🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up 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 effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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