🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 right.”

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