🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged 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 acting legally.”

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.”