🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge 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 different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of 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 U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, 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.”