🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – 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 senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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