🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 right.”

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