🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept 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 parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation 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 injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”