🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East 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 participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions 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 personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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