🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia 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 sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach 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 survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”