🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure 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 predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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.”