🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”