🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”