🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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