🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”