🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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