🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft 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 rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest 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 killing 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”