🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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