🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”