🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling 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 purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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