🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”