🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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