🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen 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 unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”