🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

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

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial 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 survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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