🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting 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 require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host 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 nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”