🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”