🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops 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 gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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