🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. 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 actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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.”

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