🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

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 different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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