The Former President's Effort to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”