🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled 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 situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors 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 unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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