The Former President's Push to Politicize US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”