🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion 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 removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 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 civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”