🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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