🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops 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 municipal law enforcement. He described 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 both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”