🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”