🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 all involved think they are right.”

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