🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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