🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He 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 succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”