Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.
“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”
He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”
Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.
Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.
Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.
In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.
This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”
The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.
“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”
The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.
Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”
Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”
At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”
