🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”