🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”