🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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