🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of 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 deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”