🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding 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 swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”