🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. 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 war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”