🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost 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 infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”