🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push 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 rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

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 recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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