🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”