🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated 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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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