🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of 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 inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. 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 primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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