🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 acting legally.”

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