🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed 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 ousting 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 controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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