🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign 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 “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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