🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure 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 took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence 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 undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up 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 new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas 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 soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”