Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.
“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”
He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”
A Life in Service
Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Current Events
In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.
Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.
A Leadership Overhaul
In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.
This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”
A Historical Parallel
The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”
Legal and Ethical Lines
The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.
One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.
Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”
Domestic Deployment
Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.
Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”
Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”
