🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem 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 deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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