🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

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. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’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 installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 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.”