🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”