🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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.”

Sooner or later, 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.”