🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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