🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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