🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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