🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

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

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved 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 harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”