🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent 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 Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops 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 state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 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 getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”