🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”