🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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