🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from 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 assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”