🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee 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 wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration 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 “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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