🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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