🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos 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 deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled 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 removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”