🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting 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 international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”