🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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