🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying 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 severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty 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 top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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