🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies 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 the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”