🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted 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 doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested 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 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 right.”

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