🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from 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 sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”