🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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