🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief 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 sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged 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 similar to today – they are not executing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”