🔗 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 move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are right.”

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