🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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 indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation 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 harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”