🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated 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 leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers 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 municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”