🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent 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 alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality 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 series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility 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 gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 following orders.”

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