🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. 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 the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

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