🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated 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 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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal 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.”

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