🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are right.”

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