🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged 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 Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept 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 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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