🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host 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 nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted 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 accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 right.”

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