🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”