🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed 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 reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are right.”

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