🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied 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 parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”