🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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