🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

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

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers 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 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”