🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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