🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”