🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”