🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”