🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating 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 local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”