🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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