🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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