Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.
“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”
He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”
A Life in Uniform
Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Current Events
In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.
Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.
The Pentagon Purge
In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.
This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”
Legal and Ethical Lines
The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.
One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.
Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”
Domestic Deployment
Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.
Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”
At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”
