🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”