🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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