🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of 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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 right.”

Eventually, 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.”