🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 each party think they are right.”

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