🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest 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 executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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.”

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