🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy 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 raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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