🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”