🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”