🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime 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 was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, 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 independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, 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 situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt 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 parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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