🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership 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 established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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