🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission 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 restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers 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 permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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