🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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.”