🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions 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 challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”