🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon 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 possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 escalation 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 getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”