🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. 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 irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government 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 gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”