🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned 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 very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”