🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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.”