🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 following orders.”

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