Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.
“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”
He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”
Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.
Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.
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 model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.
Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.
In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.
This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”
The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”
The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.
One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.
Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”
Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.
The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.
Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 right.”
Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”
A seasoned software engineer with a passion for open-source projects and tech education.
