🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”