🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled 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.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”