🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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