🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”