🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units 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 gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”