🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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.”