🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign 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 credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”