🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 individuals, 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”