🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

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

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, 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 swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining 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 real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”