🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”