🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”