🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”