🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official 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 echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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