🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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