🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped 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 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”