🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel 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 harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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