🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend 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 warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia 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 rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 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 individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”