🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

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 B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

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

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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