🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted 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 accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”