🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – 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. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals 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 grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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