🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation 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 eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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