🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. 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 advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign 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 ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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