🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary 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 undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, 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 rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest 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 executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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