🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from 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 sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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