🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, 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 Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear 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 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”