🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

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

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went 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 different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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