🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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.”