🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”