🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign 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 retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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