🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest 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 executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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