🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “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 wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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