🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration 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 prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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.”