The Former President's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions 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 war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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 the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”