🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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