🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia 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 rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

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

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”