🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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 different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”