🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign 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 rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks 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 consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration 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 primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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