🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, 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 cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration 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 accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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