🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law 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 disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”