🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”