🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers 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 removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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.”