🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command 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 most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated 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 created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units 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 biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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