🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty 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 the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal 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 acting legally.”

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