🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades 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 infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 each party think they are right.”

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