🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear 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 posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units 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 primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 each party think they are right.”

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