🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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.”