🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units 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 violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 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 harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”