🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – 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 the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 each party think they are right.”

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