🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration 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 “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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