🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent 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 cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are right.”

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