🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating 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 Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted 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 doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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