🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce 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 air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent 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 authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations 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 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 survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 right.”

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