🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command 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 credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. 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 climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust 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 killed a lot of the most capable 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 a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”