🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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