🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 each party 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.”