🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed 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 dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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