🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these officers, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops 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 direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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