🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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