🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia 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 deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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