🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He 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 series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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