🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of 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 legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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