🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”