🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career 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 political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated 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 accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”