🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned 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 key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. 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 “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”