🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”