🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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