🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”