🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

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