🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”