🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of 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 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 men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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