🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate 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 cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”