🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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