🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. 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 the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming 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 dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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