🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – 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 removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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