🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”