🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move 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 sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested 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 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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