🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists 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 removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 following orders.”

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