🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era 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 military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted 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 established military doctrine, it is a violation 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 violation of the laws of war 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 extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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