🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train 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 scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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