The Former President's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Soviet Purges, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference 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 Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending 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 appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes 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 initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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