🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 right.”

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