🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”