🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” 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 service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists 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 ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern 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 extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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