🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent 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 political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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