🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are right.”

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