🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership 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 every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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