🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance 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 firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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