🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

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

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 following orders.”

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