🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot 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 conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized 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 gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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