🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons 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 credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

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

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 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 war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”