The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”