🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father 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 advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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