🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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