🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed 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 killing these individuals, but they are removing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles 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 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 both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”