🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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