🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled 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 sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated 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 manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”