🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

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

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem 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 actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits 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 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 acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”