🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 all involved think they are right.”

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