🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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