🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career 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 sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars 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 positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal 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 all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”