🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

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

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “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 succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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