🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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