🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance 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 firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”