🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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