🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few 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 predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”