🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend 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 standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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