🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 following orders.”

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