🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders 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 fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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