🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated 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 created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach 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 firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”