🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. 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. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed 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 positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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