🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally 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 assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are right.”

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.”