🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber 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 war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few 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 authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming 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.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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