🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

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

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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