🔗 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 strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align 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 cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”