🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He 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 wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”