🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation 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 individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”