🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down 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 infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in 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 was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”