🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow 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 Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”