🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult 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, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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