🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”