🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

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

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train 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 was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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