🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life 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 aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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