🔗 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 move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally 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 infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”