🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in 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 require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, 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 declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”