🔗 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 American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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