🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

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

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals 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 serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 right.”

At some point, 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.”