🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. 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 expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive 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 disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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.”