🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“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 comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals 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 real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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