Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.
“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”
He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”
Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.
Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.
Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.
In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.
This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”
The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”
The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.
One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.
Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”
Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.
The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”
Sooner or later, 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.”
A seasoned gaming enthusiast with over a decade of experience in reviewing online casinos and sharing winning strategies.
