🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government 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 the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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