🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership 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 sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align 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 warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue 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 violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”