🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

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

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”